It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the ...

It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

There are 169968 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

KAB

Wilson, NC

#111369 Feb 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
fowl (foul)
n. pl. fowl or fowls
1. Any of various birds of the order Galliformes, especially the common, widely domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus).
2.
a. A bird, such as the duck, goose, turkey, or pheasant, that is used as food or hunted as game.
b. The flesh of such birds used as food.
3. A bird of any kind.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fowl
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fowl
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/engl...
Fowl means bird, they are not birds. The bible is wrong.
Fowl is not the original Hebrew word. Perhaps you are unaware that the Bible was not originally in English.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111370 Feb 28, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of even one proof of unreliability duly noted.
Shrug. So you keep saying despite voluminous proof. Belief doesn't create reality. Faith isn't fact. Fantasy isn't evidence. NWT is not reliable. To a point it's interesting to reflect on your droll delusions - beyond that point it's merely automaton repetition and it becomes ever more clear that you've nothing left to contribute -
and so the melody skipskipskips and becomes the refrain....

"You should never argue with a crazy man ma ma man;
You oughtta know by now."

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111371 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get your Hebrew word? You didn't cite anything. It doesn't appear to be in the verses cited from Leviticus 11.

Leviticus 11? For definition of kind we go back to Genesis. Where did you learn the bible? From a cult religious track?

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111372 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Lack of even one proof of unreliability duly noted.

You already admitted that the bible has errors. Your attempt to rationalize away from that is to preserve your own delusions.

Do you really think you are here for OUR benefit? What a lark!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111373 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as you only have your assertions and demonstrably ineffective "data", I'm comfortable with that and whatever you conclude. You're always entitled to your opinions.

You don't look at data if it does not support your confirmation bias.

Anyone who has a team of amateurs rewrite the bible to conform to their dogma is clearly not interested in the truth.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111374 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Fowl is not the original Hebrew word. Perhaps you are unaware that the Bible was not originally in English.

Perhaps you are unaware that the definition of Fowl is not found in Leviticus 111.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Mars

#111375 Mar 1, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Shrug. So you keep saying despite voluminous proof. Belief doesn't create reality. Faith isn't fact. Fantasy isn't evidence. NWT is not reliable. To a point it's interesting to reflect on your droll delusions - beyond that point it's merely automaton repetition and it becomes ever more clear that you've nothing left to contribute -
and so the melody skipskipskips and becomes the refrain....
"You should never argue with a crazy man ma ma man;
You oughtta know by now."


I am going to keep posting
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20...

To him.

It proves what liars the JWs are and how bad their "bible" translation is.
KAB

United States

#111376 Mar 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
IT was only what you think that started this.
This was started by Chrome's bold dataless declaration that Da Flud did not contribute to Barringer's crater.
KAB

United States

#111377 Mar 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are calling your "designer" either malicious or incompetent. Which is it?
Neither, oh worshipper of the god of false dichotomies. BTW, are you and the Guy of the same denomination?
KAB

United States

#111378 Mar 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Even the Satanic Bible would beat the NWT.
Actually, for the OT I will take the Orthodox Jewish Bible and for the NT I would take the NASB. For cross reference I would like to keep Wycliffe, Youngs, Geneva, Darby and NJB versions around.
Versions I would like to flush down a toilet include good news, the message, new life, the voice (and the NWT of course).
I might keep a KJV (more correctly a PJV) around because it is fun to read!
If your favorites were challenged on a point, would you check against the Sinaitic, Alexandrine, Vaticanus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls for resolution?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111379 Mar 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am going to keep posting
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20...
To him.
It proves what liars the JWs are and how bad their "bible" translation is.
It's gone from the Black Knight, to the Parrot Sketch to the Cheese Shop to the Argument Clinic with a sideline of "Who's on First."

The Bible is a demonstrably reliable source?! It's nothing but selected history and legends of the Semitic tribes heavily overlaid with mysticism. Debating the translation is like debating with a stray cat whether a ping pong ball or a phillips screwdriver is better for hammering a pair of socks when you're frying polystyrene in a sieve of ice water - it's faulty at the onset and no part of it works.

When a zealot not only aspires to ignorance, but is proud of their progress, what better proof does anyone need of their dishonesty?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111380 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This was started by Chrome's bold dataless declaration that Da Flud did not contribute to Barringer's crater.
Did someone hear a "meow?"
KAB

United States

#111381 Mar 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Wishful thinking is not a scientific explanation nor does it make verifiable predictions.
Design is a very focused real-world process, just as organisms changing thru time is a real process, critical to ToE.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111382 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This was started by Chrome's bold dataless declaration that Da Flud did not contribute to Barringer's crater.
Dataless? What sedimentary data do you propose that declares Barringer lake sediments were the result of ANY catastrophic flood? "Bold dataless declaration..?" What real sedimentary data do you have that all land masses were simultaneously submerged to depths between 22.5 to 29,000 feet? I don't mean to rush you, but you've already had 4,500 years to find some. Tic tock tic tock....
KAB

United States

#111383 Mar 1, 2013
Dogen wrote:
Lies of the Watchtowerites.
The NWT and the voice of satan
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20...
As your reference notes, appeals to authority prove nothing. The critical question is simply whether a given rendering of Jn. 1:1 is grammatically and contextually valid or not. That will only be demonstrated by data, not authority or your thinking/opinion. If there is some specific point of data in the reference that you want considered in this regard, identify it, and I will respond.
KAB

United States

#111384 Mar 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you read ancient Hebrew? I think the original parchments are Hebrew, of course it's probably several different dead languages. However, the originals are not the bible.
We don't actually have any originals, but the oldest manuscripts can be expected, in general, to be closest to the originals. Don't you agree? In that respect, they are the closest we have to "the Bible".
KAB

United States

#111385 Mar 1, 2013
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The real question is, which of the evidences can ONLY be attributed to design?
Until you have better evidence for design than for random mutation and natural selection, or any other naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, design is out and the naturalistic explanation is in. Simple as that.
Only design explains ALL the available data.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#111386 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
As your reference notes, appeals to authority prove nothing. The critical question is simply whether a given rendering of Jn. 1:1 is grammatically and contextually valid or not. That will only be demonstrated by data, not authority or your thinking/opinion. If there is some specific point of data in the reference that you want considered in this regard, identify it, and I will respond.
Previously, you've stated the the Bible is reliable. Now you state: "...appeals to authority prove nothing" and (validity) "...will only be demonstrated by data, not authority or your thinking/opinion."
Further, you state that you will respond to "a specific point of data."
Why the sudden change in personal policy, KAB?
LowellGuy

United States

#111387 Mar 1, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
This was started by Chrome's bold dataless declaration that Da Flud did not contribute to Barringer's crater.
We can't attribute phenomena to something for which there is no evidence beyond a Bronze Age story that is contradicted by itself as well as other similar stories from the same time and geographic region. The evidence should lead you to a conclusion, not vice versa.
KAB

United States

#111388 Mar 1, 2013
Tyler in Wonderland wrote:
We're not actually still going on about this flood nonsense in here, are we?
Every time the "no flood" team raises it, which seems to be every time they're at a loss for a data based input to whatever the challenge of the moment is. I think it stems from a safe-harbor presumption.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Beauty is the Lord's Golden Section 37 min 15th Dalai Lama 14
SEX did not EVOLVE (Nov '17) 14 hr Rose_NoHo 257
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 15 hr candlesmell 95,390
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 15 hr Davidjayjordan 1,847
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 18 hr Rose_NoHo 106
Hawaiian Volcanic Eruptions and Prophetic Catac... 18 hr Rose_NoHo 26
Genetic Study proves 90 percent of animals appe... Tue 15th Dalai Lama 71